Another high quality lecture from Gresham. Thank you, Professor Lieven, for this informative and elucidating placing of events and movements into larger context.
Um, not to sure about the picture he is painting. Russia although massively rural, it's industrial technology was equal to the west before the revolution. Their first car was made in 1896 by the Yakovlev engine factory. And their aero industry was up to date. He didn't mention that the revolution was funded by the west, and without the west , there would not of been a revolution. His view of the beginnings of ww2 is somewhat delusional as well. The truth will come out one day.
It's remarkable how many points in this fascinating lecture resonate with the Russia of today, with the difficulties faced by Russia in Ukraine on full display.
It is remarkable how since Ivan the Terrible in the 16th Century, Russia has always seemed to have the potential to catch up with the West, but, unlike Japan, never did so.
@@whitepanties2751 Not sure in what context you were asserting that Russia hasn't caught up with the West, but in every one that comes to mind currently the evidence betrays you. And will do more so in the future. That would be the case even without the current state of self-inflicted collapse that characterizes the West and makes the progressive advance of Russia inevitable as the West goes to hell in a handbasket.
Timothy Snyder posits that WW1 ended the land empires but not the maritime empires. He also posits that WW2 lead to the end of the maritime European empires due to the fact the metropoles of the empires were financially and militarily devastated, European prestige in Asia was shattered by the Japanese occupation, and due to the fact the post WW2 superpowers, America and the Soviets, were anti colonial, and as a result Europe was forced to unite for economic reasons, and for security reasons (ie the American led alliance system united Europe under their security umbrella to face down the Soviets. The British, the French and the Dutch all tried to maintain their empires post WW2 but couldn't do so for various reasons. They were broke, colonized nations caught up technologically, and American hegemony dissuaded the continuation of European colonialism.
The fact that Russia, a great power in Europe, and member of the Triple Entente, was excluded from the 1919 Versailles Peace Conference was a terrible blunder. Russia had sacrificed 2 million troops 1914-17 holding back German-Austro forces in western Ukraine and Poland. She deserved a voice at the peace table which redesigned post war Europe.
But Lenin et al., didn't want to know. They were not interested in any aspect of the war. They refused to pay Britain or France the loans they had received pre 1917 as they were NOT the Russian Empire. Their exclusion was not advantageous but I don't think you can blame the western powers.
I’d like to watch this video as I’m deeply interested in the topic, but the audio is garbage. Poster, can you upload a version loud enough to hear? Thank you
Very interesting to find out that the peasants had 70% of the land and a clever command and control system for distribution - absolutely no relation to what I was taught.
The best observation is "meaningless money", and/or Dark Money, is a "misplaced valuation", contracts that must implode at some point in economic cycles because they are unsupported by legitimate business. And the observation that a military victory is relatively easy, has been proved often, because it's the element of surprise that anyone would do such a thing. "Nobody wins a War," but madmen think they are entitled to power over others. South America is the unsettled example. So why has the truth about the ridiculousness of Nuclear Weapons as legitimate investment been neglected in the discussions about civil societies, and the required actions of democratic citizens to use Diplomacy before anything else in deciding whether or not they are worth having at all? Time for a conscience vote globally, in favour of the proper use of the related technologies to produce Carbon free Energy, urgently. Who decides, all our other problems seem to be way down the list.., so Know your Self.
His assertion that the Germans would have won without American intervention is patently false. The Americans were the icing on the cake of the primarily British Hundred Days offensive that broke the Hindenburg Line. And the blockade was literally starving Germany by 1918, while it was impossible for Germany to exploit the Eastern conquests to resupply herself.
Ever done your research on Lend-Lease? The British and Russians would had fallen quick had the US not been sending tanks, guns, ammo, truck, planes and food. It wasn't until supplies started flowing through Iran and into Russia that the Red Army was able to turn the Moscow offensive around! Do some research on Spam and the Red Army! “Without Spam, we wouldn’t have been able to feed our army.” Nikita Khrushchevs autobiography. Do some research on how the US military ships had to guard British supply ships crossing the Atlantic so they would have supplies to fight. If the British and Russians had the Germans beat, then why didnt the British get on mainland Europe until the US joined?
@@markvolker1145 "Do some research" You should probably do some research to find out what conversation you've butted into before you trot out that canard. You're talking about the completely wrong war. Not only did you not apparently not watch the video, but the post you just failed to reply to clearly references the Hundred Days offensive/Hindenburg Line and 1918. So either you don't know what those things are (and need to do your research before you ever butt in to convos about war ever again) or clearly don't read posts before you high horse "do some research!" over them.
Much better than the fellow with a black scarf around his neck or the lady who seemed to deny the robotic nature of ideology. Perhaps he fails also for lack of reference to the key part ideology plays in its futile and inhuman project to make the intersubjective of society consistent and to crush disagreement as immoral. He appears less of an ideologue and might well be easier for his students- if he still lectures to undergraduates. He appears more humane.
'Perhaps he fails also' - you omit to mention his preceding failure. He fails, 'for lack of reference to the key part ideology plays' / 'He appears less of an idealogue; he appears more humane'
@@jazz4asahel We see that Trump is already intervening and threatening to urge Republicans not to vote, which could cost Republicans the Senate again. Trump is a lifelong Dem and a Wrecker in this context. As you know, in Bolshevik parlance, a wrecker is someone who prevent the workers from fulfilling the five-year plan, in this case the four-year plan. The only Republican to run for president in my lifetime was Goldwater, and the last Republican president was Coolidge.
@@robertfeinberg748 Not sure there were any real wreckers; Stalin liked to think so, and to sign them out with a colored pencil. Nice touch seeing Trump as a wrecker. Painful to see him persevere ad infinitum when so much is at stake and the man has so much negative baggage despite his accomplishments. Likely we will not have a Trump, or anyone like him. He could be the path to a Democrat victory in 2024.
@@jazz4asahel I agree, and I've been warning that the DNC cabal/Plantation could still turn it around with the support of MSM and the ability to steal elections with impunity. Now they have their winning issue, but another weapon is Trump, who has threatened to again urge Republicans to stay home, which cost them the Senate. Something I know is that Trump has always been a Dem, which I know because I did all the things on campus that he didn't, including serve as an officer in Young Republicans, a member of YAF, and a Conservative member of a student govt committee. I doubt he was ever on campus at all. I will be urging Republicans to Ignore Trump and for Trump to run against Bidenin the Dem primary if there is one.
Another high quality lecture from Gresham. Thank you, Professor Lieven, for this informative and elucidating placing of events and movements into larger context.
Um, not to sure about the picture he is painting.
Russia although massively rural, it's industrial technology was equal to the west before the revolution.
Their first car was made in 1896 by the Yakovlev engine factory. And their aero industry was up to date.
He didn't mention that the revolution was funded by the west, and without the west , there would not of been a revolution.
His view of the beginnings of ww2 is somewhat delusional as well.
The truth will come out one day.
It's remarkable how many points in this fascinating lecture resonate with the Russia of today, with the difficulties faced by Russia in Ukraine on full display.
It is remarkable how since Ivan the Terrible in the 16th Century, Russia has always seemed to have the potential to catch up with the West, but, unlike Japan, never did so.
@@whitepanties2751 Not sure in what context you were asserting that Russia hasn't caught up with the West, but in every one that comes to mind currently the evidence betrays you. And will do more so in the future.
That would be the case even without the current state of self-inflicted collapse that characterizes the West and makes the progressive advance of Russia inevitable as the West goes to hell in a handbasket.
Умный мужик. Наверное один из лучших историков современности
Goes to show you don't need a powerpoint if you're an engaging person.
Interesting. Thanks.
Timothy Snyder posits that WW1 ended the land empires but not the maritime empires. He also posits that WW2 lead to the end of the maritime European empires due to the fact the metropoles of the empires were financially and militarily devastated, European prestige in Asia was shattered by the Japanese occupation, and due to the fact the post WW2 superpowers, America and the Soviets, were anti colonial, and as a result Europe was forced to unite for economic reasons, and for security reasons (ie the American led alliance system united Europe under their security umbrella to face down the Soviets.
The British, the French and the Dutch all tried to maintain their empires post WW2 but couldn't do so for various reasons. They were broke, colonized nations caught up technologically, and American hegemony dissuaded the continuation of European colonialism.
The fact that Russia, a great power in Europe, and member of the Triple Entente, was excluded from the 1919 Versailles Peace Conference was a terrible blunder. Russia had sacrificed 2 million troops 1914-17 holding back German-Austro forces in western Ukraine and Poland. She deserved a voice at the peace table which redesigned post war Europe.
But Lenin et al., didn't want to know. They were not interested in any aspect of the war. They refused to pay Britain or France the loans they had received pre 1917 as they were NOT the Russian Empire. Their exclusion was not advantageous but I don't think you can blame the western powers.
I’d like to watch this video as I’m deeply interested in the topic, but the audio is garbage. Poster, can you upload a version loud enough to hear? Thank you
Very interesting to find out that the peasants had 70% of the land and a clever command and control system for distribution - absolutely no relation to what I was taught.
Taught by whom...
"the security threat is becoming more and more acute, and a Russian government has no other option but to respond"
Where are the subtitles?
The real workers revolution
Q: what do all empires do best?
A: fall
The best observation is "meaningless money", and/or Dark Money, is a "misplaced valuation", contracts that must implode at some point in economic cycles because they are unsupported by legitimate business.
And the observation that a military victory is relatively easy, has been proved often, because it's the element of surprise that anyone would do such a thing. "Nobody wins a War," but madmen think they are entitled to power over others. South America is the unsettled example.
So why has the truth about the ridiculousness of Nuclear Weapons as legitimate investment been neglected in the discussions about civil societies, and the required actions of democratic citizens to use Diplomacy before anything else in deciding whether or not they are worth having at all?
Time for a conscience vote globally, in favour of the proper use of the related technologies to produce Carbon free Energy, urgently.
Who decides, all our other problems seem to be way down the list.., so Know your Self.
Too bad Kerensky couldn’t hold onto power.
But he had a long career at the Hoover Institution and had a long life, so he was personally better off.
Instead, he ran to France and lived his remaining life
His assertion that the Germans would have won without American intervention is patently false. The Americans were the icing on the cake of the primarily British Hundred Days offensive that broke the Hindenburg Line. And the blockade was literally starving Germany by 1918, while it was impossible for Germany to exploit the Eastern conquests to resupply herself.
do you have a source for that claim?
I agree. America showed up in time to put on the handcuffs. Germany had already been exhausted, apprehended and subdued.
Ever done your research on Lend-Lease? The British and Russians would had fallen quick had the US not been sending tanks, guns, ammo, truck, planes and food. It wasn't until supplies started flowing through Iran and into Russia that the Red Army was able to turn the Moscow offensive around! Do some research on Spam and the Red Army! “Without Spam, we wouldn’t have been able to feed our army.” Nikita Khrushchevs autobiography. Do some research on how the US military ships had to guard British supply ships crossing the Atlantic so they would have supplies to fight. If the British and Russians had the Germans beat, then why didnt the British get on mainland Europe until the US joined?
Mark Volker He’s talking about the First World War not the second
@@markvolker1145 "Do some research" You should probably do some research to find out what conversation you've butted into before you trot out that canard. You're talking about the completely wrong war. Not only did you not apparently not watch the video, but the post you just failed to reply to clearly references the Hundred Days offensive/Hindenburg Line and 1918. So either you don't know what those things are (and need to do your research before you ever butt in to convos about war ever again) or clearly don't read posts before you high horse "do some research!" over them.
Much better than the fellow with a black scarf around his neck or the lady who seemed to deny the robotic nature of ideology. Perhaps he fails also for lack of reference to the key part ideology plays in its futile and inhuman project to make the intersubjective of society consistent and to crush disagreement as immoral. He appears less of an ideologue and might well be easier for his students- if he still lectures to undergraduates. He appears more humane.
'Perhaps he fails also' - you omit to mention his preceding failure.
He fails, 'for lack of reference to the key part ideology plays' / 'He appears less of an idealogue; he appears more humane'
He makes a good case for autocracy, and we are making a poor case for so-called Democracy, which amounts to rule by the DNC.
Understood. We'll see if the RNC does anything against a Neo-Bolshevik DNC in November 2022.
@@jazz4asahel We see that Trump is already intervening and threatening to urge Republicans not to vote, which could cost Republicans the Senate again. Trump is a lifelong Dem and a Wrecker in this context. As you know, in Bolshevik parlance, a wrecker is someone who prevent the workers from fulfilling the five-year plan, in this case the four-year plan. The only Republican to run for president in my lifetime was Goldwater, and the last Republican president was Coolidge.
@@robertfeinberg748 Not sure there were any real wreckers; Stalin liked to think so, and to sign them out with a colored pencil. Nice touch seeing Trump as a wrecker. Painful to see him persevere ad infinitum when so much is at stake and the man has so much negative baggage despite his accomplishments. Likely we will not have a Trump, or anyone like him. He could be the path to a Democrat victory in 2024.
@@jazz4asahel I agree, and I've been warning that the DNC cabal/Plantation could still turn it around with the support of MSM and the ability to steal elections with impunity. Now they have their winning issue, but another weapon is Trump, who has threatened to again urge Republicans to stay home, which cost them the Senate. Something I know is that Trump has always been a Dem, which I know because I did all the things on campus that he didn't, including serve as an officer in Young Republicans, a member of YAF, and a Conservative member of a student govt committee. I doubt he was ever on campus at all. I will be urging Republicans to Ignore Trump and for Trump to run against Bidenin the Dem primary if there is one.
... which amounts to the two party corporate duopoly.
After WWI, Germany should have been divided into small states (Bavaria, East Prussia, Rhineland, etc...) all banned to ever again form a united state.
I agree. Strange that none of the suriving great powers got this idea in 19i7-1919.